December 11, 2009. New York, NY - Today, U.S. District Judge Nina Gershon granted a preliminary injunction against the United States for unconstitutionally withholding funds from ACORN. In its decision, the court found that there is a likelihood the plaintiffs will be able to show that Congress’ targeted defunding of ACORN violates the Constitution’s prohibition against Bills of Attainder, legislative acts which single out a specific person or group for punishment. [...]

Good God Almighty. I wonder which version of the USC they considered?

[...] The Court’s ruling stated, “The plaintiffs have raised a fundamental issue of separation of powers. They have been singled out by Congress for punishment that directly and immediately affects their ability to continue to obtain federal funding, in the absence of any judicial, or administrative, process adjudicating guilt... The public will not suffer harm by allowing the plaintiffs to continue work on contracts duly awarded by federal agencies...” [...]

Here's something everyone must read: FDR and the Supreme Court. The document is long and has quite a bit of the legalese lunacy but, there is some mention of the Constitution therein...

The New Deal cases emphasize the position of supremacy which the Supreme Court occupies in the American constitutional system. Chief Justice Hughes is doubtless bored by the constant repetition of his epigram "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is." It is a practical man's appraisal of the realities of the constitutional system under which we live. This judicial supremacy has arisen in part from the very nature of the judicial process of interpreting and applying the law, and it has been increased by the vagueness and generality of the constitutional clauses which have to be construed.

If we are satisfied with the present system and its results we will naturally have no proposals to make. If we feel that the constitutional wreckage left by the New Deal decisions is due to the abuse of judicial power rather than to the inadequacy of the Constitution to modern needs, then we may logically demand some limitation on the power of the Supreme Court. We shall in this case need to be cautious to see that we do not create more problems than we solve. We may, however, feel that our present difficulties are due partly to an over-zealous extension of judicial power and partly to the failure of an 18th century Constitution to meet adequately the demands of the 20th century. In this case we may attempt to solve both problems by clarifying amendments to the Constitution. This will not only modernize the Constitution, but it will also narrow the field of judicial review by sharpening the vague clauses of the Constitution under which the Supreme Court is now engaged, almost of necessity, in the work of national policy determination.

This plan might well be tried before anything is "done to" the Court, since it promises not only an immediate adjustment of the Constitution to the current of our present national life, but also a forced retirement of the Court from the fields of constitutional construction in which it faces the greatest difficulty and incurs the sharpest criticism.

That is at the very end of the document. Read the above several times and you will notice something very surreal; "We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is." Really? Is that so?

For decades upon decades we have heard that the judges "ruled" this way when they didn't "rule" a bloody thing...they OPINED on an issue. At the top of every document it reads, "Under the Opinion of The Court" which isn't a "ruling", is it?

So, exuding from this particular case comes a fretting observance from a Layman of the USC: if the Congress under everyday ventures of constitutional thought, all things done by Congress is in fact constitutional, where does this judge see that the constitutional Congress IN ALL AREAS has committed anything unconstitutional? Does this make sense to anyone?

ACORN has violated many "rights" under the unconstitutionally constitutional Congress, got caught and now their stature under the unconstitutional congress has been rendered unconstitutional so they are hereby granted more unconstitutional "rights" under the very unconstitutional government for receiving unconstitutional payments?

Does anyone not see the vast ambiguities here?

It. Is. Time.

The Snooper Report. Join us as we Take Our Country Back.Sic vis pacem para bellumFight Accordingly

Reader Comments (4)

do you believe that the Courts' opinions are non-binding - kind of like "opinions/assholes - everyone's got one"?

Opinions are the court's reasons for the decision/judgment/ruling. Some of the judges will agree with a particular outcome, but for different reasons. Others will disagree with the majority - and they get to explain their reasons for their dissenting decisions in writing too. That where the "majority opinion" comes in. Majority rules.

Who do you want deciding what's constitutional? Congress? Barry? You only have three choices. Obviously, it's the judiciary.

Having said that, and In my non-binding asshole/opinion, I have no idea how a judge has been able to say that defunding ACORN is "unconstitutional". In fact, I'm mystified.

The SCOTUS does NOT produce "rulings". Look at the very top of each piece of data they so prescribe...it says, and I quote: "In the opinion of this court...". And that settles that. It is an opinion. Read that FDR POS document. How "constitutional" was it and why do we have "judicial review" when judicial review is not in the USC? What's up with that?

Get over judicial review because it most certainly is not constitutional.

This is what happens when the LOWEST form of government, the SCOTUS, becomes the Premier Edition above and beyond the MOST powerful piece of our government, the Congress. And, the SCOTUS being the Supreme Law of the Land, they have also overstepped their Executive privileges as well.

This federal judge overstepped her authority only because the Congress has overstepped their bounds to the USC. Period and it is that simple.

I'm still waiting for an answer about who the Founders thought would keep congress and the executive in check. They don't check themselves - do they?

If SCOTUS doesn't have judicial review powers, what are they supposed to be doing? Giving "opinions" over beer and peanuts with nobody paying a blind bit of difference to what they say?

The word "opinion" has a legal as well as ordinary defination. It does indeed mean the reasons for the ruling. You can look it up in any law dictionary. I'm not making it up.

You guys get everything twisted bassackwards because you fail to understand what common law is or the roots of the American legal system. I invite you to look up "reception statutes". It's implicit that SCOTUS, the highest court in the land has JR power. Otherwise, they'd be like you and me and the whole exercise of judges sitting would be a waste of time.

It's the Constitution that was the first federal system - the law and the understandings that underpin the Constitution are English common law. (That is why Emmenthal Vattel is an interesting text - but not law.)

For you to be guided by a guy (Loki) who thinks everthing about US law is somehow novel is ridiculous. The history is open to anyone to read. He's had the "argument" on countless occasions with many people because he's wrong - not everyone else.

Who do you think knows more about constitutional law - Scalia or Loki?

"The word "opinion" has a legal as well as ordinary defination. It does indeed mean the reasons for the ruling. You can look it up in any law dictionary. I'm not making it up." Law dictionaries written by...LAWYERS? Are you kidding me? Please. Read the US Constitution and all your answers are there. It isn't difficult at all.

And no, we were NOT established as a Nation under British Common Law. Judas H Priest! Read the Constitution. It isn't all that difficult.

Scalia? What about Kennedy? What about any man or woman that wears their black damned pajamas to work? What if their mental midgetness were torn asunder by the very constitution they so seem to eagerly defend and protect.

The United States Constitution:

Article III

Section. 2.

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

The Unconstitutional SCOTUS is to be shat upon no matter the name of the individual

Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.

You are free to share, to copy, distribute and transmit the work to remix, to adapt the work under the following conditions: Attribution. You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The best way to do this is with a link to this web page. Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder. Nothing in this license impairs or restricts the author's moral rights.
''